Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/March 23, 2004


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   '''no consensus; default to keep. I'm loathe to make new policy or clarify extant policy here. My strong preference is that this discussion go to the Village Pump for clarification.'''. - Philippe 03:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

March 23, 2004

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I thought we weren't allowed to have pages for individual dates like this. This info is redundant to March 23 and 2004. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete March 2004 contains all of this information. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - I went back and forth on this. There are several categories (Category: Days in 2003 and Category:Days in 2004) that are filled with nothing but pages like this. Is this an instance of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS? Maybe. But I think that the sheer number of pages of this type mean that this one can stay too. TN ‑ X - Man  20:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Then why isn't there a page for March 10, 1987 (On this date, User:TenPoundHammer was born)? Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well said, sir. I checked a little more and I think 2003 and 2004 are the only years with individual days listed. I think this may merit further review, per 23skidoo's suggestion. TN ‑ X - Man  20:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It has been getting further review. See my note furthyer down this page. Grutness...wha?  02:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Very very 90-lb weaking keep. Although I agree with the nominator's rationale for nominating, the sheer number of articles out there suggests that I guess we are allowed to have individual day articles. I personally feel they're redundant, however I see no point in singling out just this one out of the dozens if not hundreds of similar articles. A review of policy, or a policy proposal (if one doesn't already exist) might be the way to handle this en masse. In answer to TPH's well-said comment above, maybe they haven't gotten around to that date yet? 23skidoo (talk) 20:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Very big comment - this is transcluded into March 2004. It seems most months before about 2006 are done in a similar way (more recent ones transclude Portal:Current events/Month Inclusion). I think there are January 1, 2003 to July 31, 2005. --h2g2bob (talk) 21:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Reluctant delete There may come a day when Wikipedia has a project of documenting individual dates, with 36,524 or 36,525 articles to document every day of a particular century. I'd personally favor that, but I can understand the reasons why it isn't done (such as vanity additions).  Until that does become policy, the convention is and should be to cross reference this under March 23 and under 2004.  Mandsford (talk) 21:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm still concerned, though, that all this AFD will accomplish if a Delete decision is made is removing this single article. There's still a full category of individual day articles, which based on volume alone places this into a different category that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Is it possible to do a mass nomination of so many articles? The March 2004 example is definitely the way to go on this - but what is the policy or is there even a policy regarding this sort of thing? 23skidoo (talk) 23:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - before this debate goes much further, can I ask you all to have a look at Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Removal of many individual date articles? Grutness...wha?  01:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. All info in March 2004. This may cause problems with confusion and duplicate information. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I looked at the discussion. So far, there's no indication that the door will be opening anytime soon to articles about individual days, although there apparently has been an acceptance about articles about individual months starting with January 1999, but not before-- probably a reflection of the myopic nature of Wikipedians who came of age in the "era of breaking news".  Going to what 23skidoo says, I don't have a problem with nominating similar articles for deletion, for the sake of consistency.  November 22, 1963 or July 20, 1969 or September 11, 2001 can become redirects, while the notable information in most other date articles can be merged.  What articles do exist probably date back to a few years ago when Wikipedia was taking just about anything.  As Joe Friday said about marijuana, change the law if you don't want it to be a crime.  Mandsford (talk) 20:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep for now&mdash;I can not support a delete on this until we have a consistent policy on all entries under Category:Days in 2004, &c. Removing individual dates from the set while keeping the remainder seems illogical.&mdash;RJH (talk) 21:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that there's any indication that this article is part of a set. Mandsford (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge into March 2004.-- danntm T C 21:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - events on particular days can be notable (December 7, 1941, March 5, 1953, etc), but the days themselves are not. Every day is another 24-hour cycle of the Earth around the Sun - will we be seeing June 21, 402 or December 18, 62782 BC anytime soon? The only exception I can think of is if (hypothetically) a certain day lasted 25 hours, or marked the end of a calendar era, or something intrinsic to it rather than to the events that took place then. This is not the case here, so let's delete. Biruitorul (talk) 04:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a 25-hour day once every year, and a 23-hour one, too - or do you not have daylight saving where you live? Grutness...wha?  06:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You're quite right. Make that 26 hours. Biruitorul (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep all individual dates provided there are several verifiable and notable things that occurred on that date (obviously no December 18, 62782 BC, and almost certainly no June 21, 402 either). These articles are useful collections of info that assist in providing chronological context. Everyking (talk) 06:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Everything happens on some date. That doesn't make the date itself notable. In a few cases (12/7/41, 11/22/63, 9/11/01, etc), the date does become etched in the collective consciousness. But I'm sorry, almost no one remembers this specific date. (And even if it were remembered, we could easily redirect to the event.) Which leads us to WP:NOTDIRECTORY. We are an encyclopedia, not the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. We are not here to document every short burst of coverage. For "what happened on a particular day?" type queries, we have day articles (January 1, January 2, etc) giving the most notable historic events that took place on that day. For people interested in a specific date, newspaper archives handle that sort of thing (or actually, month articles like March 2004, of which this is simply a fork).
 * And another point: what about notability? Where are the "multiple independent reliable sources" discussing the significance of March 23, 2004 qua March 23, 2004 and not as a function of the events that took place that day? We can't just wave that away in the interests of "providing chronological context". Biruitorul (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that enforcing that standard is the biggest problem in keeping this kind of article. Either there should be a decision on the part of Wikipedia to give inherent notability to all articles about individual dates in a particular period (such as 20th century) or the policy continue that no individual date merits its own article.   The least attractive alternative is the one where between 10 and 20 people weigh in on whether they think a particular month/day/year in history is notable.  The original policy choice on this was wise.  I think it's presumptuous of our small group to decide that "March 23, 2004" was important, but that "March 24, 2004" was not.  On the other hand, there's no denying that there were verifiable and notable things that happened on March 23. Mandsford (talk) 15:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete this and all other articles for specific dates within its category, keeping those for the months of the form "XXXXXX 2004". We have been going through a boatload of deletion discussions of redirects of specific dates at WP:RfD; I'd recommend going through there (the latest set is in Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 May 3; the original set with the justifications for deletion is in Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 April 19. B.Wind (talk) 05:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If we subst: the pages in, we can make them redirects but cannot delete them. This is due to the GFDL. --h2g2bob (talk) 17:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.